Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> >> - regardless of commit ids, do you synthesize an artificial commit?
> >> How do you define parenthood for that artificial commit?
> > Because tagging is never used to deduce changesets, the case does not arise.
> So if a branch has a nonsensical branching point, or a tag is
> nonsensical, is it ignored and not imported?
I don't know what happens when identically-named tags point at changes that
resolve into two different commits. I will figure that out and document it.
There's evidence, in the form of some code that is #ifdefed out, that
Keith considered trying to make synthetic commits from tag cliques. But
abandoned the idea because he couldn't figure out how to assign such
cliques to a branch.
I'm not sure what counts as a nonsensical branching point. I do know that
Keith left this rather cryptic note in a REAME:
Disjoint branch resolution. Branches occurring in a subset of the
files are not correctly resolved; instead, an entirely disjoint
history will be created containing the branch revisions and all
parents back to the root. I'm not sure how to fix this; it seems
to implicitly assume there will be only a single place to attach as
branch parent, which may not be the case. In any case, the right
revision will have a superset of the revisions present in the
original branch parent; perhaps that will suffice.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html